SciELO SPS 1.10: What Journal Directors Should Ask Before the Next XML Batch

If your last SciELO package still declares specific-use as sps-1.9, you are not "a little behind" — you are packaging against a version the network has already moved past. SPS 1.10 is the operating reference now. The DTD base did not magically jump to JATS 1.4; SciELO still sits on Journal Publishing 1.1. What changed is the SciELO style layer: a handful of rules that show up as red errors the first time your vendor validates with the new tools.

This is not a changelog dump. It is the short list a journal director should send to whoever produces the XML — in-house or outsourced — before the next issue leaves the building.

What did not change (so you do not overreact)

• Base schema remains JATS Journal Publishing DTD 1.1. Keep dtd-version="1.1". Do not "upgrade" the attribute to 1.4 just because NISO shipped Z39.96-2024.
• You still need a well-formed package: XML + figures + PDF + issue metadata, named the way your national coordinator expects.
• Editorial admission criteria (peer review, ISSN, open access) still sit upstream of any XML fix. SPS will not save a journal that fails selection.

Root element pattern for current delivery:

<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
         xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"
         article-type="research-article"
         dtd-version="1.1"
         specific-use="sps-1.10"
         xml:lang="es">

If that specific-use still says sps-1.9 in production files, treat it as a process bug, not a cosmetic typo.

The ORCID rule people underestimate

SPS 1.10 requires ORCID (@contrib-id-type="orcid") for at least one author on the article. It does not say "every author must have ORCID or we reject you" — and that nuance is exactly where teams get stuck.

What goes wrong in real workflows:

1. The corresponding author has ORCID in OJS, but the XML producer only tags names.
2. The team invents a placeholder ORCID to "pass validation." That is worse than omitting it; harvesters and coordinators notice.
3. Capture happens after layout. By then the author is offline and the issue is already late.

Ask your provider: "Show me, on the last pilot article, which contrib carries ORCID and the exact format." For SciELO SPS you want the bare identifier (0000-0001-8528-2091) inside <contrib-id> — not https://orcid.org/.... SPS rejects the URI form.

Operational fix that actually works: ORCID becomes a hard field on acceptance, not a nice-to-have on the PDF cover page. One verified ORCID per article clears the SPS floor; more is better for discovery.

CC-BY is not "any Creative Commons"

SciELO's network standard for open access attribution is CC-BY. Journals admitted years ago may still carry older licenses under collection-specific transition rules, but new indexing conversations and new journals should not treat CC-BY-NC as "close enough."

In the XML, the URI in xlink:href on <license> must match what you told SciELO in policy. Coordinators do not enjoy explaining to a director that the website says BY and the package says BY-NC.

What the new validator tends to bite first

When teams move from documentation written for 1.9 to tooling aimed at 1.10, the first failures are rarely exotic:

You do not need to memorize every issue number in the SciELO whatsnew page. You do need a provider who can point to the current SPS 1.10 guide and show which rules they validate before you open a ticket with the national collection.

Checklist to send your XML provider (copy-paste)

Ask for written answers, not a slide deck:

1. Confirm all article roots use dtd-version="1.1" and specific-use="sps-1.10".
2. Confirm at least one author per article has a live ORCID as a bare ID in the XML; describe how they collect it.
3. Confirm license markup is CC-BY (or the exact license your collection approved) and matches the journal site.
4. Name the validator / SPS documentation version they use for the next batch.
5. Deliver one pilot article validated under 1.10 before the full issue.
6. List the three recurring errors from your last SciELO return and how 1.10 changes the fix.

If they cannot answer items 1–4 without hedging, the risk sits with you — the coordinator will still return the package to the journal, not to the vendor's marketing site.

How this fits the rest of your stack

EditorialXML's free JATS validator checks JATS 1.4 Archiving. That is a useful structural scrub. It is not a SciELO SPS pass. For SciELO-bound issues, run Archiving first if you want, then SPS 1.10 rules, then your national checklist. Skipping the middle step is how clean JATS still comes back with a red stamp.

For a full workflow, see the SciELO preparation step-by-step guide or the SciELO preparation service.

Bottom line

SPS 1.10 is less about learning a new alphabet of tags and more about closing the gaps that 1.9 let slide — ORCID at the article level, honest CC-BY markup, and a root attribute that tells the network which rules you claim to follow. Directors who ask for a validated pilot before the full batch spend less time explaining returns in the next editorial board meeting.

Sources consulted

• SciELO Publishing Schema — whatsnew 1.10
• SciELO Publishing Schema documentation
• SciELO Open Access Statement
• JATS Journal Publishing Tag Set